PDO doesn't stand for anything, but that doesn't mean we can't learn anything from adding up the overall shooting and save percentages for a team at even strength. A layman's explanation for 'PDO' and why we use it can be found here over at the Backhand Shelf. Basically, if a team is playing with a PDO number way higher than 1.000, they're producing above their expected output. If a team is playing with a PDO number below 1.000, they're producing below their expected output. Over the course of a long season, the number will generally correct itself.

I've also included team Fenwick Close % numbers, pulled from behindthenet.ca as well. Treat it as a proxy for the amount of time each team spends with the puck. Any team with a rate over 50% is pretty good and should make the playoffs in an 82-game season unless something goes horribly wrong.

It feels weird that we haven't started any wars with Anaheim Ducks bloggers over the Ducks' eventual fate. They're not even doing it with goaltending anymore. Every shot is turning into friggin gold for them. Very similar to the team's 2011 season when they made the playoffs with the third worst Fenwick Close % in the NHL. That year, they were winning games less because of high shooting percentages and more because they went 29-10-5 in one-goal games. Still, that was a team that shouldn't have made the playoffs, and the next season their shooters regressed heavily.

But now they're back. Ryan Getzlaf's shooting percentage in the last four years, starting with the 2009-2010 season? 12.8%, 16.2%, 5.9%, 17.9%. Corey Perry's numbers are more modest: 10.0%, 17.2%, 13.4%, 14.8%. Andrew Cogliano, basically Todd Marchant without hands, has scored nine times on 36 shots this season. Teemu Selanne, Daniel Winnik and Sheldon Souray are the only three scorers they have with 5+ goals (and they have 11 of them total) without a shooting percentage above 15%. Every Duck has caught fire in a bottle this year.

Vancouver's usually higher in these rankings. Goaltending appears to be killer for them this year. Roberto Luongo, a known PDO driver, is sitting on the bench as the team is going through an ugly stretch. I made my feelings on that known over at Canucks Army. Now that we've seen a little more of Cory Schneider, I'm wondering if that isn't the goalie the Canucks should try to trade away...

Montreal and Toronto are having excellent seasons, but Montreal's success is still more realistic. Like we've all said though, a team can basically make the playoffs coasting on crazy percentages in a 48-game season, and that looks like the Maple Leafs could do that. They stormed back to pick up a point against Pittsburgh on Marc-Andre Fleury's inability to stop anything remotely close to scoring range.

The heck is wrong with Ken Hitchcock's goalies? It's like Brian Elliott woke up one morning and thought "you know what? I'm Brian Elliott". Still, if you're going to be the worst PDO team in the league, you may as well also be a dominant puck-possession squad so you can still make the playoffs. That team is so good, but nobody will know it because they've commit to Brian Elliott for two seasons and Jaro Halak can't seem to string together any decent games.

Los Angeles couldn't buy a save, so they figured out how to shoot pucks. Uh oh. If this were an 82-game sked, I'd bet on them catching up to Anaheim.

Cam Charron is a BC hockey fan that writes about hockey on many different websites including this one.

Hello! I've been spending the last few days attempting to understand some of these metrics and analysis, but I freely admit that I have a long way to go. So, selfishly, I am hoping someone could help me to understand what I'm seeing, through the prism of the Flyers' advanced metrics.

If I'm reading this correctly, aren't the Flyers' advanced metrics so low as to be unsustainable, and that a correction -- at least in an 82-game season -- could possibly result in significant production increases? I ask this because, however slightly, they outshoot their opponents and their Fenwick Close percentage indicates they have the puck enough -- though not amazingly high -- where they are driving possession more often than the opponent.

Or am I failing to understand what I'm seeing and that it could be as simple as the Flyers' goaltending and defense is so bad 5vs5, along with the ability to score 5vs5 (though their team shooting percentage seems horribly low), that they are simply lucky to be where they are in the standings, which is 10th in the Eastern Conference?

Hello! I've been spending the last few days attempting to understand some of these metrics and analysis, but I freely admit that I have a long way to go. So, selfishly, I am hoping someone could help me to understand what I'm seeing, through the prism of the Flyers' advanced metrics.

If I'm reading this correctly, aren't the Flyers' advanced metrics so low as to be unsustainable, and that a correction -- at least in an 82-game season -- could possibly result in significant production increases? I ask this because, however slightly, they outshoot their opponents and their Fenwick Close percentage indicates they have the puck enough -- though not amazingly high -- where they are driving possession more often than the opponent.

Or am I failing to understand what I'm seeing and that it could be as simple as the Flyers' goaltending and defense is so bad 5vs5, along with the ability to score 5vs5 (though their team shooting percentage seems horribly low), that they are simply lucky to be where they are in the standings, which is 10th in the Eastern Conference?

Thanks for any help/explanation that someone might wish to provide.

Pretty much your last paragraph. It's a decent team facing bad luck - in goal particularly. They're not a bad team at all.

Been looking at these PDO stats for a few weeks and this is the first time I see this stat paired with the Fenwick stat. What jumped out to me is that the Fenwick stat can help give a better numeric team value. A simple addition of the pdo and fenwich produces interesting standings. With teams we expect to see at the top and bottom,

Been looking at these PDO stats for a few weeks and this is the first time I see this stat paired with the Fenwick stat. What jumped out to me is that the Fenwick stat can help give a better numeric team value. A simple addition of the pdo and fenwick produces interesting standings. With teams we expect to see at the top and bottom,

The Ducks were outshot 31-21 yesterday, including 22-7 in the first two periods. They won. Oh, and their PDO went up, and their Fenwick Close went down. Apparently, they laugh in the face of regression.

The Ducks are used to it by now, they keep winning and you guys keep posting these stats that I'm sure the Ducks would find amusing. The regression gods smile upon them. By the way since when does Todd "hands of stone" Marchant have hands? or was that just a hyperbole?

Hi I'm a Ducks blogger here on queue to fuel the fire :) These stats don't take into account the ability to finish, some players have it and some players don't, it's intangible and immeasurable. Shooting percentage does not factor in the quality of said shot, if it did you'd see that most of Cogliano's goals came from 10 feet or closer which would significantly increase his shooting %. A dump from your own zone that ends up on the opposing net is measured the same as a breakaway shot. Being lucky is one thing, but good teams create their own luck. Anyway keep stat watching while the rest of us enjoy exciting Ducks hockey.

This is my main problem with these stats, they don’t track quality of shot, I was watching all of Cogs goal highlights today and 8 were scored from less than 10 feet away from the net, 1 was an empty net and the other was from just inside the top of the face off circle, All of his goals were scored from prime locations and this is the reason his shooting % is so high, not because of luck, an NHL player will not miss often from in that close.